The theory written by Clifford Wilson states that the pyramids were built with naturally formed limestone cut into blocks with primitive tools and then hauled up ramps on rollers and sleds into position. While this theory is well developed, it has several flaws. The first problem with the theory above is the issue of labour. It would take in innumerable amount of workers (Estimates range from 50 thousand to several hundred thousand) to cut and move the 1400 blocks per day that would be necessary to complete the pyramid within the lifespan of the Pharaoh. It is unlikely that such a labour force could have been mustered in order to build the pyramid. If the pyramid was built using clay clocks, such a workforce would not have been necessary, as the construction method allows for fewer labourers. Another flaw in Wilson’s theory is that the tools that were available at the time of the building of the pyramids were unfit for such a task: “Copper is a soft metal unsuitable for cutting hard stone, particularly on the scale required for the great pyramid.” (Davidovits, J., 3) The Egyptians would have needed bronze tools to cut so much stone with such precision, and bronze tools would not be available for another 3 centuries after the construction of the pyramids. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Egyptians actually quarried stone at all until around 1600 BCE; nine hundred years after the pyramids were built. Another Flaw in Wilson’s theory is that it does not explain how the pyramids were built with such precision. The Pyramids blocks are all perfectly smooth with no evidence of tool marks, and they fit together so flawlessly that they are all within a thousandth of an inch of each other. This would suggest that the blocks were moulded, as the quarrying and cutting of 2.6 million blocks of stone to such perfection would be nearly impossible. These transportation and quarrying issues, as well as the fact that Wilson’s Theory does not explain the precision with which the blocks were made show that Wilson’s theory is implausible and these issues provide further evidence that the blocks in the pyramids were moulded, as Davidovits suggests.
When all evidence is accounted for, Davidovits’ theory seems much more explanatory and much more probable than the theories proposed by Wilson and Danilken. Wilson’s version of events does no explain how the Egyptians accomplished such perfection in their pyramids, and does not realistically portray the transportation and quarrying techniques. Daniken’s theory does highlight some mysterious truths about the pyramid, but credit for most of these can be given to the Egyptians and not to aliens. Davidovits’ theory may have a few minor flaws, yet these can all be accounted for, and it is clear that his theory is closest to the truth.
